http://www.resource-allocation.com The most accessed research articles published by Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2012-04-04T00:00:00Z Background: Health organizations the world over are required to set priorities and allocate resources within the constraint of limited funding. However, decision makers may not be well equipped to make explicit rationing decisions and as such often rely on historical or political resource allocation processes. One economic approach to priority setting which has gained momentum in practice over the last three decades is program budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). Methods: This paper presents a detailed step by step guide for carrying out a priority setting process based on the PBMA framework. This guide is based on the authors' experience in using this approach primarily in the UK and Canada, but as well draws on a growing literature of PBMA studies in various countries. Results: At the core of the PBMA approach is an advisory panel charged with making recommendations for resource re-allocation. The process can be supported by a range of 'hard' and 'soft' evidence, and requires that decision making criteria are defined and weighted in an explicit manner. Evaluating the process of PBMA using an ethical framework, and noting important challenges to such activity including that of organizational behavior, are shown to be important aspects of developing a comprehensive approach to priority setting in health care. Conclusion: Although not without challenges, international experience with PBMA over the last three decades would indicate that this approach has the potential to make substantial improvement on commonly relied upon historical and political decision making processes. In setting out a step by step guide for PBMA, as is done in this paper, implementation by decision makers should be facilitated. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/2/1/3 Craig Mitton Cam Donaldson Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2004, null:3 2004-04-22T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-2-3 /content/figures/1478-7547-2-3-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 3 2004-04-22T00:00:00Z XML Background: Systematic and transparent approaches to priority setting are needed, particularly in low-resource settings, to produce decisions that are sound and acceptable to stakeholders. The EVIDEM framework brings together Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) by proposing a comprehensive set of decision criteria together with standardized processes to support decisionmaking. The objective of the study was to field test the framework for decisionmaking on a screening test by a private health plan in South Africa. Methods: Liquid-based cytology (LBC) for cervical cancer screening was selected by the health plan for this field test. An HTA report structured by decision criterion (14 criteria organized in the MCDA matrix and 4 contextual criteria) was produced based on a literature review and input from the health plan. During workshop sessions, committee members 1) weighted each MCDA decision criterion to express their individual perspectives, and 2) to appraise LBC, assigned scores to each MCDA criterion on the basis of the by-criterion HTA report.Committee members then considered the potential impacts of four contextual criteria on the use of LBC in the context of their health plan. Feedback on the framework and process was collected through discussion and from a questionnaire. Results: For 9 of the MCDA matrix decision criteria, 89% or more of committee members thought they should always be considered in decisionmaking. Greatest weights were given to the criteria "Budget impact", "Cost-effectiveness" and "Completeness and consistency of reporting evidence". When appraising LBC for cervical cancer screening, the committee assigned the highest scores to "Relevance and validity of evidence" and "Disease severity". Combination of weights and scores yielded a mean MCDA value estimate of 46% (SD 7%) of the potential maximum value. Overall, the committee felt the framework brought greater clarity to the decisionmaking process and was easily adaptable to different types of health interventions. Conclusions: The EVIDEM framework was easily adapted to evaluating a screening technology in South Africa, thereby broadening its applicability in healthcare decision making. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/10/1/2 Jacqui Miot Monika Wagner Hanane Khoury Donna Rindress Mireille Goetghebeur Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2012, null:2 2012-02-29T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-10-2 /content/figures/1478-7547-10-2-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 2 2012-02-29T00:00:00Z XML Priority setting of health interventions is often ad-hoc and resources are not used to an optimal extent. Underlying problem is that multiple criteria play a role and decisions are complex. Interventions may be chosen to maximize general population health, to reduce health inequalities of disadvantaged or vulnerable groups, ad/or to respond to life-threatening situations, all with respect to practical and budgetary constraints. This is the type of problem that policy makers are typically bad at solving rationally, unaided. They tend to use heuristic or intuitive approaches to simplify complexity, and in the process, important information is ignored. Next, policy makers may select interventions for only political motives.This indicates the need for rational and transparent approaches to priority setting. Over the past decades, a number of approaches have been developed, including evidence-based medicine, burden of disease analyses, cost-effectiveness analyses, and equity analyses. However, these approaches concentrate on single criteria only, whereas in reality, policy makers need to make choices taking into account multiple criteria simultaneously. Moreover, they do not cover all criteria that are relevant to policy makers.Therefore, the development of a multi-criteria approach to priority setting is necessary, and this has indeed recently been identified as one of the most important issues in health system research. In other scientific disciplines, multi-criteria decision analysis is well developed, has gained widespread acceptance and is routinely used. This paper presents the main principles of multi-criteria decision analysis. There are only a very few applications to guide resource allocation decisions in health. We call for a shift away from present priority setting tools in health – that tend to focus on single criteria – towards transparent and systematic approaches that take into account all relevant criteria simultaneously. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/4/1/14 Rob Baltussen Louis Niessen Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2006, null:14 2006-08-21T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-4-14 /content/figures/1478-7547-4-14-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 14 2006-08-21T00:00:00Z XML Background: Telemedicine has been advocated as an effective means to provide health care services over a distance. Systematic information on costs and consequences has been called for to support decision-making in this field. This paper provides a review of the quality, validity and generalisability of economic evaluations in telemedicine. Methods: A systematic literature search in all relevant databases was conducted and forms the basis for addressing these issues. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals and written in English in the period from 1990 to 2007 were analysed. The literature search identified 33 economic evaluations where both costs (resource use) and outcomes (non-resource consequences) were measured. Results: This review shows that economic evaluations in telemedicine are highly diverse in terms of both the study context and the methods applied. The articles covered several medical specialities ranging from cardiology and dermatology to psychiatry. The studies analysed telemedicine in home care, and in primary and secondary care settings using a variety of different technologies including videoconferencing, still-images and monitoring (store-and-forward telemedicine). Most studies used multiple outcome measures and analysed the effects using disaggregated cost-consequence frameworks. Objectives, study design, and choice of comparators were mostly well reported. The majority of the studies lacked information on perspective and costing method, few used general statistics and sensitivity analysis to assess validity, and even fewer used marginal analysis. Conclusion: As this paper demonstrates, the majority of the economic evaluations reviewed were not in accordance with standard evaluation techniques. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for this and to address how economic evaluation in telemedicine best can take advantage of local constraints and at the same time produce valid and generalisable results. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/7/1/18 Trine Bergmo Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2009, null:18 2009-10-24T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-7-18 /content/figures/1478-7547-7-18-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 18 2009-10-24T00:00:00Z XML Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is potentially an important aid to public health decision-making but, with some notable exceptions, its use and impact at the level of individual countries is limited. A number of potential reasons may account for this, among them technical shortcomings associated with the generation of current economic evidence, political expediency, social preferences and systemic barriers to implementation. As a form of sectoral CEA, Generalized CEA sets out to overcome a number of these barriers to the appropriate use of cost-effectiveness information at the regional and country level. Its application via WHO-CHOICE provides a new economic evidence base, as well as underlying methodological developments, concerning the cost-effectiveness of a range of health interventions for leading causes of, and risk factors for, disease.The estimated sub-regional costs and effects of different interventions provided by WHO-CHOICE can readily be tailored to the specific context of individual countries, for example by adjustment to the quantity and unit prices of intervention inputs (costs) or the coverage, efficacy and adherence rates of interventions (effectiveness). The potential usefulness of this information for health policy and planning is in assessing if current intervention strategies represent an efficient use of scarce resources, and which of the potential additional interventions that are not yet implemented, or not implemented fully, should be given priority on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.Health policy-makers and programme managers can use results from WHO-CHOICE as a valuable input into the planning and prioritization of services at national level, as well as a starting point for additional analyses of the trade-off between the efficiency of interventions in producing health and their impact on other key outcomes such as reducing inequalities and improving the health of the poor. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/1/1/8 Raymond Hutubessy Dan Chisholm Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2003, null:8 2003-12-19T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-1-8 /content/figures/1478-7547-1-8-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 8 2003-12-19T00:00:00Z XML Estimating the costs of health interventions is important to policy-makers for a number of reasons including the fact that the results can be used as a component in the assessment and improvement of their health system performance. Costs can, for example, be used to assess if scarce resources are being used efficiently or whether there is scope to reallocate them in a way that would lead to improvements in population health. As part of its WHO-CHOICE project, WHO has been developing a database on the overall costs of health interventions in different parts of the world as an input to discussions about priority setting.Programme costs, defined as costs incurred at the administrative levels outside the point of delivery of health care to beneficiaries, may comprise an important component of total costs. Cost-effectiveness analysis has sometimes omitted them if the main focus has been on personal curative interventions or on the costs of making small changes within the existing administrative set-up. However, this is not appropriate for non-personal interventions where programme costs are likely to comprise a substantial proportion of total costs, or for sectoral analysis where questions of how best to reallocate all existing health resources, including administrative resources, are being considered.This paper presents a first effort to systematically estimate programme costs for many health interventions in different regions of the world. The approach includes the quantification of resource inputs, choice of resource prices, and accounts for different levels of population coverage. By using an ingredients approach, and making tools available on the World Wide Web, analysts can adapt the programme costs reported here to their local settings. We report results for a selected number of health interventions and show that programme costs vary considerably across interventions and across regions, and that they can contribute substantially to the overall costs of interventions. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/1/1/1 Benjamin Johns Rob Baltussen Raymond Hutubessy Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2003, null:1 2003-02-26T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-1-1 /content/figures/1478-7547-1-1-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 1 2003-02-26T00:00:00Z XML Information on the unit cost of inpatient and outpatient care is an essential element for costing, budgeting and economic-evaluation exercises. Many countries lack reliable estimates, however. WHO has recently undertaken an extensive effort to collect and collate data on the unit cost of hospitals and health centres from as many countries as possible; so far, data have been assembled from 49 countries, for various years during the period 1973–2000. The database covers a total of 2173 country-years of observations. Large gaps remain, however, particularly for developing countries. Although the long-term solution is that all countries perform their own costing studies, the question arises whether it is possible to predict unit costs for different countries in a standardized way for short-term use. The purpose of the work described in this paper, a modelling exercise, was to use the data collected across countries to predict unit costs in countries for which data are not yet available, with the appropriate uncertainty intervals.The model presented here forms part of a series of models used to estimate unit costs for the WHO-CHOICE project. The methods and the results of the model, however, may be used to predict a number of different types of country-specific unit costs, depending on the purpose of the exercise. They may be used, for instance, to estimate the costs per bed-day at different capacity levels; the "hotel" component of cost per bed-day; or unit costs net of particular components such as drugs.In addition to reporting estimates for selected countries, the paper shows that unit costs of hospitals vary within countries, sometimes by an order of magnitude. Basing cost-effectiveness studies or budgeting exercises on the results of a study of a single facility, or even a small group of facilities, is likely to be misleading. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/1/1/3 Taghreed Adam David Evans Christopher Murray Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2003, null:3 2003-02-26T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-1-3 /content/figures/1478-7547-1-3-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 3 2003-02-26T00:00:00Z XML Background: The World Health Organization recommends that national malaria programmes universally distribute long-lasting insecticide-treated bed nets (LLINs). LLINs provide effective insecticide protection for at least three years while conventional nets must be retreated every 6-12 months. LLINs may also promise longer physical durability (lifespan), but at a higher unit price. No prospective data currently available is sufficient to calculate the comparative cost effectiveness of different net types. We thus constructed a model to explore the cost effectiveness of LLINs, asking how a longer lifespan affects the relative cost effectiveness of nets, and if, when and why LLINs might be preferred to conventional insecticide-treated nets. An innovation of our model is that we also considered the replenishment need i.e. loss of nets over time. Methods: We modelled the choice of net over a 10-year period to facilitate the comparison of nets with different lifespan (and/or price) and replenishment need over time. Our base case represents a large-scale programme which achieves high coverage and usage throughout the population by distributing either LLINs or conventional nets through existing health services, and retreats a large proportion of conventional nets regularly at low cost. We identified the determinants of bed net programme cost effectiveness and parameter values for usage rate, delivery and retreatment cost from the literature. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to explicitly compare the differential effect of changing parameters such as price, lifespan, usage and replenishment need. Results: If conventional and long-lasting bed nets have the same physical lifespan (3 years), LLINs are more cost effective unless they are priced at more than USD 1.5 above the price of conventional nets. Because a longer lifespan brings delivery cost savings, each one year increase in lifespan can be accompanied by a USD 1 or more increase in price without the cheaper net (of the same type) becoming more cost effective. Distributing replenishment nets each year in addition to the replacement of all nets every 3-4 years increases the number of under-5 deaths averted by 5-14% at a cost of USD 17-25 per additional person protected per annum or USD 1080-1610 per additional under-5 death averted. Conclusions: Our results support the World Health Organization recommendation to distribute only LLINs, while giving guidance on the price thresholds above which this recommendation will no longer hold. Programme planners should be willing to pay a premium for nets which have a longer physical lifespan, and if planners are willing to pay USD 1600 per under-5 death averted, investing in replenishment is cost effective. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/10/1/5 Anni-Maria Pulkki-Brannstrom Claudia Wolff Niklas Brannstrom Jolene Skordis-Worrall Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2012, null:5 2012-04-04T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-10-5 /content/figures/1478-7547-10-5-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 5 2012-04-04T00:00:00Z XML Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common disorder that is associated with broad functional impairment among both children and adults. The purpose of this paper is to review and summarize available literature on the economic costs of ADHD, as well as potential economic benefits of treating this condition. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE to identify all published articles on the economic implications of ADHD, and authors were contacted to locate conference abstracts and articles in press that were not yet indexed. In total, 22 relevant items were located including published original studies, economic review articles, conference presentations, and reports available on the Internet. All costs were updated and presented in terms of year 2004 US dollars. A growing body of literature, primarily published in the United States, has demonstrated that ADHD places a substantial economic burden on patients, families, and third-party payers. Results of the medical cost studies consistently indicated that children with ADHD had higher annual medical costs than either matched controls (difference ranged from $503 to $1,343) or non-matched controls (difference ranged from $207 to $1,560) without ADHD. Two studies of adult samples found similar results, with significantly higher annual medical costs among adults with ADHD (ranging from $4,929 to $5,651) than among matched controls (ranging from $1,473 to $2,771). A limited number of studies have examined other economic implications of ADHD including costs to families; costs of criminality among individuals with ADHD; costs related to common psychiatric and medical comorbidities of ADHD; indirect costs associated with work loss among adults with ADHD; and costs of accidents among individuals with ADHD. Treatment cost-effectiveness studies have primarily focused on methylphenidate, which is a cost-effective treatment option with cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $15,509 to $27,766 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. As new treatments are introduced it will be important to evaluate their cost-effectiveness to provide an indication of their potential value to clinicians, patients, families, and third-party payers. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/3/1/5 Louis Matza Manishi Prasad L. Clark Paramore Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2005, null:5 2005-06-09T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-3-5 /content/figures/1478-7547-3-5-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 5 2005-06-09T00:00:00Z XML This paper aims to provide a critical and systematic review of the societal costs of air pollution-related ill health (CAP), to explore methodological issues that may be important when assessing or comparing CAP across countries and to suggest ways in which future CAP studies can be made more useful for policy analysis. The methodology includes a systematic search based on the major electronic databases and the websites of a number of major international organizations. Studies are categorized by origin – OECD countries or non-OECD countries – and by publication status. Seventeen studies are included, eight from OECD countries and nine from non-OECD countries. A number of studies based on the ExternE methodology and the USA studies conducted by the Institute of Transportation are also summarized and discussed separately. The present review shows that considerable societal costs are attributable to air pollution-related health hazards. Nevertheless, given the variations in the methodologies used to calculate the estimated costs (e.g. cost estimation methods and cost components included), and inter-country differences in demographic composition and health care systems, it is difficult to compare CAP estimates across studies and countries. To increase awareness concerning the air pollution-related burden of disease, and to build links to health policy analyses, future research efforts should be directed towards theoretically sound and comprehensive CAP estimates with use of rich data. In particular, a more explicit approach should be followed to deal with uncertainties in the estimations. Along with monetary estimates, future research should also report all physical impacts and source-specific cost estimates, and should attempt to estimate 'avoidable cost' using alternative counterfactual scenarios. http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/6/1/19 Tanjima Pervin Ulf-G Gerdtham Carl Hampus Lyttkens Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2008, null:19 2008-09-11T00:00:00Z doi:10.1186/1478-7547-6-19 /content/figures/1478-7547-6-19-toc.gif Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 1478-7547 ${item.volume} 19 2008-09-11T00:00:00Z XML